Suman Gupta v. State

$~34 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1742/2016 SUMAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Anjana Joshi, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through :

Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.

Mr.H.Kumar, Advocate with Ms.Kanika Bajaj, Advocate for the complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

O R D E R

% 22.09.2016 1.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.529/2016 registered under Sections 384/388/509/506/109/34 IPC at PS Janakpuri. Status report is on record.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and have examined the file. 3.

On perusal of the file, it reveals that the parties are acquainted with each other.

They live in the same vicinity since long.

The petitioner and complainant's husband were having visiting terms. A cross-case vide FIR No.528/2016 has been lodged by the petitioner on BAIL APPLN. 1742/2016

20.07.2016 against the complainant's husband for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC.

Raj Vimal has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide a separate order in the said FIR. Raj Vimal did not lodge any complaint against the present petitioner for harassment on any count prompting his wife / complainant to make an attempt to commit suicide.

3.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail and in the event of arrest, she be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating officer. She shall, however, join the investigation as and when required.

4.

The bail application stands disposed of.

S.P.GARG, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 / tr BAIL APPLN. 1742/2016